I dug some handouts out of a binder from a training I attended once - and I still think they are some of the best concepts around to start to understand how our own communications styles and how they effect other people. I'd like to try and explain the two main concepts contained in said handouts in this post - but beware, this is first in terms of format for me, so I'm not sure how this is going to turn out. Plus, it turns out I'm a really bad lecturer in all formats.
I should give credit to Eric H.F. Law, who I believe was the originator of these. Also, much of the language is taken directly from the handout with little to no modification.
Concept #1: Power Distance Communication.
These can be separated into High and Low Power Distance, but I should note that they are a continuum rather than two discrete forms. Also, it should be noted up front that one person is not bound to one particular style, but can both change over time and change depending on the situation.
High Power Distance: Individuals who view the world with a high power distance believe that there is inequality in the world and accept that as a fact of life. Signs of high power distance may include (1) a lower trust level, (2) higher levels of desired protocol, (3) a desire to figure out the role of everyone in the room before participating, and (4) a need for more context before action can be taken.
How HPD can play out: People who are high power may have to work harder at building a safe environment (which is necessary for open and honest communication); they may be happier if they are together rather than interspersed with low power distance folks, at least at first. High power folks are more likely to be concerned with "what's in it for them." High power people have little tolerance for folks who think everyone in the room is equal. Finally, since lower power distance folks think of low-level high power folks as weak, said low-level folks may get run over quite a bit initially.
By the way, these attributes are generally understood as applying to group work, the workplace, etc - how folks interact with each other in social situations. In this case, think of a school board working group, a staff meeting at the district office, or even a teacher's meeting in one of the academies are Lebanon High School.
Low Power Distance: These folks believe that power is shared by many and high power people are either elitist (if they are at the top) or weak (if they are at the bottom). Lower Power Distance people may (1) downplay the importance of hierarchy, (2) have a low level of protocol, (3) feel that people should try to look less powerful than they are, and/or (4) feel that people can also gain power through education.
How LPD can play out: LPD folks may simply speak out rather than raise their hands or follow other protocols designed to maintain or maximize order; this may result in their dominating discussions. If a discussion enters the realm of difference, low power folks may show disdain for comments that either valorize the rich or anyone else at the top of a hierarchy.
Examples of these: I would think that something like a law office would be very high power distance, as it contains lots of hierarchy. Certainly military training can create situations that are VERY high power distance, with strict protocols surrounding peoples' roles and who can say what, and when, and to whom. I would think coaches also often follow a high power distance model, with an insistence on everyone knowing the ropes and rules, especially those governing who is in charge (always the coach).
Now contrast that with a group of teachers that get together for lunch every day. Yes, they are aware that some of them have more seniority than others, but by and large, the potential exists for the space created to be one in which everyone is treated as an equal, and formal rules governing the group can be tossed in favor of informal (and sometimes assumed) rules.
I don't mean to imply, however, that something we might normally think of as high power distance can't be low power distance. A staff meeting with teachers, administrators, and district office officials present can turn out to be a very low power distance affair.
And, of course, I should note again that these are concepts that generally apply to people's perspectives; as a result, you might find yourself in a group made up of folks who are all over the continuum and have very different ideas about how the group should or does work. How those perspective mesh, conflict, and play out is often very different, even with the same group meeting multiple times. The point is simply to be aware that different people view the protocols and practices of communication differently, and moreover, that these views can change over time and in different contexts. As a result, I think it's important to pay attention to where you are at on the Power Distance continuum as well as where others appear to be at. It can prevent folks from talking past each other, or getting embroiled in disagreements about how to communicate rather than what information needs to be communicated.
Concept #2: High & Low Context Communications
This concept goes really well, I think, with the first. Context Communications is, essentially, being aware of how much context is transmitted between people along with the information that's going back and forth.
High Context Communicators: When people communicate, most of the information is either in the physical context (body language) or internalized in the person. Therefore, implicit messages are critical. High context people may struggle initially in a new setting as they have to reorient themselves within the new shared context.
How this can play out: A high context communicator might feel the need to speak uninterrupted to get their point across; this may take some time, making others impatient. They may also need more extensive directions put in a context they can work with.
Low Context Communicators: These are pretty common in U.S. society. The low context individual values the explicit codes and pays less attention to the information embedded in messages. They will often need little contexting time; they feel that they can confront new situations with requiring a great amount of time and detailed programming; finally, they may have difficulty functioning in a high-context environment where contexts are constantly in play, since low context folks often are often unaware of their internal context.
How this plays out: Basically, low context folks just want the answer (think more "yes/no" than the "why"). They don't want all the context, which they often perceive as extraneous or wasteful.
When I was introduced to this concept, I was asked to envision a tower. At top of the tower is the piece or pieces of information that need to be communicated between people. The rest of the tower, the foundation, the framework, all the floors up to the top - those are the context that is needed for the information to make sense. A high context person will often feel the need to communicate the entire tower from the bottom up before communicating the information itself. The tower is the contextual information that is perceived as required for the desired piece of information to make sense. If the person listening interrupts, this can be perceived as a need to build a bigger tower - to include more contextualizing information along with the desired information, because it suggests to the high context person that the questioner didn't really understand what was going on.
Needless to say, this can be infuriating for low context folks who just want a 'yes' or 'no' or other short answer.
The way I understand it, low context folks tend to assume the shared context, the tower, between people or groups. As a result, low contexters tend to view all the other communication, the tower-building, as a repetitive waste of time.
It was mentioned above that many folks in the U.S. are low context. I would argue (and it's here that I out myself as preferring high context) that what this indicates is that folks in the U.S. feel like they have a shared context in which to understand and master new information. Personally, I consider this a bad assumption in any group, much less larger groups that may contain people from significantly different backgrounds.
In fact, when wedded with power, I consider low context communications to be one way in which things like white or male privilege are manifested and transmitted: People of color and white women are expected to share the context created by the privileged white male while not being allowed to change or modify the "shared" context at all. Then the "shared" context is considered universal. It can work this way when any kind of power differential between individuals or groups is present, even if all the folks present are, say, white guys - there are certainly other axes along which power is transmitted.
Again, as with the power distance concept, the context communications concept is something that both exists on a continuum and is very mutable and flexible. One person can change over time in the way they communicate, and they can also change depending on the situation they are in. For example, a group of really close-knit friends or coworkers may have developed a shared context around certain subjects over time, allowing their communication to be successfully low context. On the other hand, some of those same folks may adopt a high-context attitude with their students, or in larger staff meetings. Similarly, groups of professional and classified education staff may have their own shared context - but it's important to remember that the context-building in this case needs to be a self-aware and self-conscious process; otherwise, it's easy to get back to that point where a shared context is assumed, and that becomes a barrier to communication.
Concluding Thoughts
I think both of these concepts have a lot of potential when it comes to Lebanon and the problems that have plagued it over the last decade. Certainly there are genuine differences of opinion when it comes to pedagogy and education policy, but (and this is especially true of the last several months) those differences hardly ever get really aired, since communication is, I think, so incredibly poor between folks right now.
Sitting down and thinking, as an individual, about where one falls on these continuums, especially in what contexts, and even thinking about where you think other people fall, is also a good first step to learning how to communicate with one's coworkers and other educational staff more effectively. I know that folks often want to resist doing the internal and introspective work that I'm suggesting, but I cannot express how important that work is: One cannot make others change. One can only change oneself and try and support others as they do the same.
Lebanon Truth wrote a post in which they criticized Rick Alexander (rightly, I think) for not being willing to sit down and read a book on how to be a better school board. While I think the choice of book is hilariously (and seriously) appropriate, I would argue that in addition, what is important for the currently disparate and contentious group of five individuals that are trying to oversee the LCSD is that they take the time outside of board meetings and working groups to get to know each other as people and develop some sort of shared context, some common ground (and maybe some shared values), which they can use as a basis for their work in the future. I have the feeling that Rick Alexander has no intention of doing something like that, as it would require him to actually a) learn about the rest of the board, and b) open himself up to them. But relating to other human beings on a personal level is, I think, a prerequisite for being effective in a work-related situation.
